Loesch: Women Who Have Abortions Are "Ageist Bigot[s]" Who Believe That Those "Not As Far Developed As You Somehow Don't Count"
February 06, 2012 12:43 pm ET
From the February 3 edition of KFTK's The Dana Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
I'm not "pro abortion" and nobody I know is "pro abortion". This is another intellectual victim of the right wing war on reasonable discourse.
When everything is boiled down to two opposing absolutes, the right winger who is certainly anti-abortion, can very easily be manipulated into believing everyone who doesn't agree with their position completely is "pro abortion" and somehow wants more abortions and delights in the idea of women getting them.
They use this same logic on many other issues, including war, social programs and entitlements, education, and taxes. None of these issues are defined by two simple, mirrored opposites. The right wing ideology benefits most when reason is taken out of the discussion and emotional reactions take their place.
I have grown so weary of this two-sided absolutist rhetoric, and we should point this garbage out whenever possible.
Ms. Loesch,
You are a despicable piece of excrement.
Sincerely,
dloesch@971ta
For your information:
dloesch@971talk.com
Naw, she is OK with all sorts of purchases that a woman may make.
What she is against is a woman having the choice to control her own body if say, the rubber fails or she "forgets" she is at her peak fertile period.
Those of us who understand this aren't ageist bigots - we're the reasonable ones in the debate with an argument that she can't beat. Fetuses don't have an "age". Not until one is born and survives in the outside world does one have an age, and that's as a result of a birth day.
You're basically making the statement that there is still EVIDENCE out there that will end this debate once and for all. That will never happen because no matter what evidence is shown to prove the anti-choice people wrong, they will never accept such evidence or argument.
- jamesB
The rest of this is nothing but fluff jamesB. Shall I remind you that you supported Wesley's argument that Planned Parenthood should do fewer abortions because Komen cut it's ties with PP?
The first statement implies that there will be new evidence to come out further in the future, where as the second implies that there will be no new information coming out. I wrote research papers for 3 years about history jamesB. Making these two contradictory statements implies an inability to understand simple comprehension.
You act like my baby sister and brother, can't admit when they've done or said something that is wrong. Instead attempting to push this whole "you don't understand" argument and claiming that anyone who questions you is an idiot who lacking in an ability to understand English.
In fact, your entire argument on that page was about how there needs to be less abortions and I recall you've made the same arguments on other PP pages that you think they should restrict/stop offering abortions.
And btw jamesB, you've said a number of contradictory statements over and over again. Just because you say doesn't mean you actually believe in it or support it. And in fact in that PP article I linked to earlier you were for cutting PP's abortion services, and did not call out Komen for the obvious political motivations of cutting it's ties with PP, which are due from motivations from anti-choice groups. That doesn't exactly sound like someone who's pro-choice!
You've done this 180 degree turn and try acting like you're a moderate, but you haven't really changed your stripes as your arguments continually support the extreme right.
And yes jamesB, you said it by supporting Wesley without even questioning his argument.
There is no lie within what I've said.
Please stop projecting yourself on others.
He's got a memory like a gold fish! When another topic comes up he'll be singing a different tune then a previous related topic. Then when you link to what he said in the previous topic, he ignores it and pretends it never happened.
If we could edit/delete our responses, I'm betting the majority of his and other right wingers would delete their responses within hours of posting.
"the odds of that ever changing at next to nil"--jamesB
"believe that are staunchly pro life "--jamesB
"i've made more than enough to try and make you understand plain english"--jamesB
"you are clearly an idiot"--jamesB
James Joyce your are not.
The anti-abortion crowd is against all of those things because the anti-abortion crowd isn't about reducing the number of abortions, it's about eliminating them. They aren't interested in whether the need is reduced or not. They want abortions banned because, as another poster so accurately and pointedly put it, they think pregnancy should be a punishment for immoral sex. For the anti-abortion crowd, it's not about saving lives, it's about punishing the immoral.
No compromise is possible until that fundamental chasm is bridged. And something tells me the anti-abortion crowd isn't interested in building a bridge.
And so those who suggest that a non-viable fetus should get some rights that would force a woman to carry that fetus against her will? They can't confront that argument and win it, and they know it.
Shockingly, jamesb actually makes an articulate point here. Do read what he wrote and don't simply go on the attack/defense simply because of the name attached to the post.
The one beef I have is the use of the misnomer "pro-life". These folks are most emphatically NOT pro-life. At least, once that fetus starts breathing, they are not. They have no problem letting a non-fetus die by whatever means available, be it war, the death penalty, or lack of sustenance. Let's call them what they are.
If more so-called conservative anti-choice people would actually realise that there ARE NO PRO ABORTION people, then we all COULD work together to provide comprehensive sex education to our children, and to provide effective birth control to sexually active people (men and women along with, unfortunately, boys and girls). The pipe-dream that teens can be effectively kept from sexual activity is just that: a pipe-dream. Hormones will out.
Too many children go un-adopted for that old argument to hold water, and besides that, it is darned expensive to carry a fetus to term.
I can tell you from experience that NO ORGANIZATION, charitable or government aid, recognizes a fetus as a part of the family for purposes of determining aid. When they determine how much help they will give you, they want family size and income information, and the fetus does NOT count in that family size determination.
It's not being an ageist. Those fetuses have no "age" until they leave the womb, until they have a "birthday."
There's a reason a "birthday" is called that - it's because it's your "BIRTH day".
What they are interested in is controlling other people. It burns them up to think that there are people out there not having to face the consequences of their actions, and they have somehow nominated themselves the world's morality police and they believe they are the ones who get to determine what is right for everyone else.
This is why they are so angry. They spend their whole lives preaching morality, and the idea that a woman can get pregnant and then not have to be saddled for the rest of her life with a child makes all their dire warnings against premarital sex meaningless. Therefore, they want to remove any process that interferes with their puritanical warnings and moral stories. This is why they are against sex education, free access to birth control, and the right to choose to end a pregnancy.
These people thrive on the suffering of others because it helps reinforce their warped views on spirituality and religion. A life without moral consequences calls their rigid beliefs into question, and they would rather force society to conform in ways that validate their beliefs rather than accept that they just might be wrong.
Exactly this. If they really wanted to lower abortion rates, then they would be heavily in favor of increasing sex education and access to contraception...this way, people who don't want to have a child for whatever reason are far less likely to be put in a situation where abortion is being considered. Instead, they do the exact opposite, because in some sick way they think forcing a woman to have a child is appropriate "punishment" for her actions.
And I hate that they call themselves "pro-life" because it implies that those who disagree are somehow "anti-life". It's totally fallacious. No one is "pro-abortion", everyone would be happier if there were no abortions. The difference is that one side wants there to be no abortions because they are illegal, and the other wants there to be no abortions because they aren't needed.
One side believes a woman has the right to choose, but we should provide education and contraception to reduce the number of women who have to make that choice. The other just believes poor people shouldn't have sex.
This is pretty much the entire anti-abortion argument succinctly boiled down to a single, highly accurate sentence.
Though I don't condone what she did, I understand because after that girl admitted she had an abortion, the anti-abortion ladies posted pictures of aborted fetuses on her locker, called her all sorts of names and key'ed "baby killer" on her car.
Karma, ain't she a b!*ch?
Of course, this figure doesn't include the number of women who miscarry without ever even knowing they were pregnant in the first place.
It's not big government to tell people what they can and can't do regarding contraception and pregnancy though.
While we're at it, remember how the Bush administration and various conservative groups often lamented that government shouldn't be doing charity, it's up to the churches?
Well, either those goodly blessed rich folk aren't donating enough to their churches, or the churches are failing in that mission, huh?
I have had a total of 7 confirmed pregnancies in my life.
30% ended in miscarriage.
60 % ended in live births.
10% ended in, you guessed it, abortion.
The more intelligent of you here will understand these statistics.
a little OVER 30% miscarriage
a little UNDER 60% live births
a little UNDER 10% abortion
To me, this is interesting and I am willing to bet accurately reflects statistics as a whole in regard to pregnancy and outcomes in this country.
Ah, so that's why one of the nutjobs (boxtop, I think) claimed that Planned Parenthood was after the Almighty Dollar. I didn't realize he meant literally competing with God.
I knew most people would understand it, that the woman, the person closest to that potential human, the one intending to have a child, would have lost a life that she wanted to come into existence. That's a good thing, she should be able to seek justice.
But I knew just as well that the anti-choice simpletons would get all confused, thinking that this confirmed their belief that a zygote is a person. And they've been proving me right.
I would put money on it that Loesch had an abortion at some point in her life.
"Some are saying that Loesch had an abortion at some point in her life"
Though F her, nonetheless.
Sure. Then again since NO rational breathing woman would ever let you within a mile of her and you have about as much chance of seeing a womans nake body as you do of seeing Godot riding a unicorn. There isnt anything like CHOICE for you and you are speaking out of pure jealousy.
I believe drinking is more detrimental to your health and everyone else's than abortion, but I don't go around smashing beer bottles in stores or putting glue in the locks of bars so people can't get in.
Why? Because I realize that what other people do that I might disagree with is none of my damn business.
What's your excuse?
You know what is really wrong boxy?
We live in a society that uses sex to sell everything.
We don't adequately educate our children about reproduction and sex.
(some folks actively work against allowing children to be educated)
We have groups of people who believe that a woman shouldn't have the right to control her own body/reproduction.
Just so you know:
No woman "wants" to have an abortion.
I'm gonna run over to the Planned Parenthood site and make a long overdue donation. Thanks Dana for the great idea! BRB!!
That was the smartest 25 bucks I've spent in ages. AND...tax deeeeeduuuuctible!!!!! OH. Wait. Nevermind. I'm one of those horrid Americans who *GASP* don't pay federal income tax, cause I am among the working poor.
Oh well, don't worry boxtop, if you ever manage to get some poor girl into bed and she happens to leave you something to remember her by....(if you know what I mean, wink. wink.)have no worries, because Planned Parenthood has got your back! They will provide you with free, yes free! care and get rid of any pesky problema you might have. Yes, I know you are a "dude" but PP does not care about that...they'll even help the male population. That is how awesome they are. Also, you can even tell them to use the 25 dollars I just donated. I have compassion for all....even the likes of you.
Oh. And, here's a fun fact for you. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. (Despite what Fox tells you.)
Why do you hate capitalism?
Unless you think charity's a waste of money.
I wonder, if in light of these developments, the Republicans will say, "Hmm. I guess the people have spoken" and finally shut up about this.
Dana, you're getting closer and closer to a gig with Roger Ailes.
You've certainly accumulated a long string of factfromassing hate pieces for your audition tape.
All you need now is a quick visit to your beautician to turn you blonde and Roger'll be giving you a call.
Far too many young people, I include males, do not have the knowledge necessary to make good choices about contraception. I suspect that many of those attend parochial schools that never mention sex. You know, the same kind of "education" promoted by Reichwing freaks.
Recent study of contraception among teens
What do you call people who use the rhythm method?
Parents.
Anyone who calls themselves pro-life should be calling for the immediate and complete shutdown of the tobacco industry.
Pro-life with any tolerance for those racketeering killers is a huge hypocrite.
CNN has moved not to the dark side, but is so far down the rabbit hole that the odds of facts appearing there are diminishing very very quickly.
Allowing women the choice to terminate a pregnancy is overruling their choice? The word salad is worthy of Sister Sarah.
Then the whargarbl about being ageist bigots? What does that even mean? Is this some ham fisted counter punch for being ridiculed for pushing religious repression and fake science?
And no matter how many times she said it, I didn't know where she was going.